In the wake of the US terror attacks we asked David Learmount,
Operations and Safety Editor of
Flight International how airport security could be improved.

Q: What is more crucial - tighter security at airports or on planes?

A: Hijackers are only dangerous when they get onto an aircraft, so the primary
task is to improve airport security to ensure that any would-be hijacker is
recognised, and that anybody with anything that could be used as a weapon
has it removed. There is a dreadful inconsistency at most airports; people
have nail scissors taken away from them but are allowed to take glass
bottles of duty free drink on board. A broken bottle is a formidable weapon.

Q: What are the pros and cons of armed guards on planes?

A: Armed guards can be recognised by an alert, professional terrorist
organisation. They travel often, carry little, and look bored. So the first
people that a terrorist will target will be the 'sky marshalls'. If,
however, armed guards are specifically selected, trained and armed for their
highly specialist task, they have a good chance of prevailing in an on-board
conflict, especially if they make intelligent use of the passengers to help
restrain the hijackers.

Armed guards can be recognised by an alert, professional terrorist
organisation

David Learmount

But sky marshalls should be seen as the final line of defence. Using them is
an admission that the airport security has failed. And if the hijacker has
managed to get some form of a bomb on board, any badly judged intervention
by a sky marshall may cause him to detonate it - that is one of the reasons
why it is essential that the sky marshall is well trained and, ideally,
unrecognised.

Q: What about locked and secure pilots' cabins?

A: With the advent of suicide hijackers whose aim is using the aircraft as a
weapon, specially designed secure cockpit doors are beginning to look like
an option that at least requires serious study. Ordinary cockpit doors will
not keep a terrorist out - they clearly did not in the 11 September hijacks
in the USA, because US airlines have always kept cockpit doors locked.

The doors will have to be armoured, and the pilots are going to have to be
provided with all the facilities that they need for the flight, whether
long-haul or short, on their side of the door. That would include food and
drink as well as a lavatory and rest facilities.

Banning hand luggage of all kinds makes air travel, especially long-haul,
just that much more unfriendly

David Learmount

Israeli airline El Al has
the tightest security in the world. On its aeroplanes cabin crew have to
pass through two armoured doors to get to the flight deck, and they have to
lock the first one before the second will open. Studies have to determine
whether other airlines face a degree of risk high enough to demand such a
big investment, because systems like this are expensive to install, heavy,
and also endanger the pilots' ability to escape in an emergency evacuation,
and takes up space which could be used for passenger facilities.

Q: What about the benefits of banning hand luggage?

A: Banning hand luggage of all kinds makes air travel, especially long-haul,
just that much more unfriendly. You cannot take your book, your toilet bag,
your camera, or your briefcase/laptop if you are on a business trip and want
to use the airborne time to work. So airlines would want to avoid that. But
banning from the cabin all except small bags or a brief case containing
these essentials would take a lot of pressure off security staff and make
any weaponry more difficult to hide.

Q: Do airport check in staff need better training?

A: Airport staff need to be well trained, well paid and to have some sort of
career structure in prospect to enable them to progress in the growing
security industry - if that is what they want to do. They also need frequent
screen breaks if they are working a scanner, because the greatest problem is
keeping their mental concentration and vigilance high. Experience is
important, hence the need for motivated operators and a low staff turnover.

Q: What new technology can be used to improve security?

A: Technology is improving all the time. Now the latest scanners are able to
recognise and alert the operator to suspicious objects and substances - but
the operator's own intelligence is essential to recognise the unfamiliar and
be suspicious of it.

That is where the old fashioned human being comes in. Ultimately, hand
searches, both of people and baggage, should be conducted whenever there is
any doubt. Non-X-ray whole-body scans are being developed, with computer alerting
systems.

Finally, personal identity will be able to be checked by hand-scans, retinal
scans or other devices now under development. This will make it impossible
to use false identity documents.

Q: Is it now inevitable that passengers will now face longer check in times?

A: Things in European airports should not change much when the system shakes
down once more, because the infrastructure and staffing for good security
systems is basically in place - particularly in the UK where the IRA threat
has ensured that standards are high. Despite the need at present for higher
levels of vigilance, improved drills and better equipment should keep
check-in times under control.

For domestic flights in the USA, however, things are changing dramatically.
It is no accident that this weak point was chosen by the 11 September
hijackers. Now US travellers are having to forego their fast, cheap system
in favour of the European variety. Europeans are already used to long
check-ins. Americans, on domestic flights, are not, even though their
international flight security is high quality.